Rating:
No votes cast

North River Bridge

Map 

Description 

New pedestrian bridge built on original piers

Facts 

Overview
Lost wooden bridge over North River on North River Road (old alignment)
Location
Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Status
Destroyed by ice storm in 1998
History
Built 1912; bypassed and abandoned 1964; destroyed by ice storm 1998
Design
Lost wooden bridge of unknown design. Originally carried traffic before being bypassed by the current NH-155. New timber stringer bridge constructed for pedestrian use circa 2002.
Approximate latitude, longitude
+43.07901, -71.03264   (decimal degrees)
43°04'44" N, 71°01'58" W   (degrees°minutes'seconds")
Approximate UTM coordinates
19/334532/4771594 (zone/easting/northing)
Quadrangle map:
Epping
Inventory number
BH 79064 (Bridgehunter.com ID)

Update Log 

  • April 21, 2018: Updated by Amanda: Override bridge with entry for previous bridge. Need info about superstructure design and photos
  • April 20, 2018: Updated by Amanda: Revert unexplained removal of content
  • October 26, 2017: New Street View added by Matthew

Comments 

North River Bridge
Posted April 22, 2018, by Luke

IMO both are needed, since "destroyed by ice" isn't an official status category (YET. It should be.)

North River Bridge
Posted April 22, 2018, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Amanda,

The new page looks good, I would make two other suggestions. 1. Pick one either destroyed by ice or destroyed by flood. 2. Since you have pics of the replacement bridge post a couple labeled current bridge or replacement bridge...

Royce

North River Bridge
Posted April 21, 2018, by Luke

Then it's "Destroyed by flooding" with the "Destroyed by ice" subcategory added, not "preserved", as what's there now is new pedestrian construction, not what was there before being preserved.

North River Bridge
Posted April 21, 2018, by Luke

The bridge width negates your claim that it was a former road bridge, though, just like how the machinery height and narrowness of a span negated the Lawrence, MA bridge as being a "railroad bascule".

This replaced a road bridge, and, quite frankly, whatever was there before is probably more interesting than this pseudo-suspension.

North River Bridge
Posted April 21, 2018, by Luke

Despite it being blurry, if you compare the bridge width in the 1951 imagery to the bridge width in 1992 imagery, you can see that the current structure is far narrower than what was there in 1951 (Or even the slightly-clearer 1974 imagery.).

North River Bridge
Posted April 21, 2018, by Luke

I mean, Royce and I spent the better part of the past week arguing, and he recommended me in his reply to you.

People can disagree and still be respectful.

It's hard to be respectful when one takes the disagreement far too personally, as you continually have.

We appreciate your contributions, but if you're gonna pull the "time and money" card, both Royce (From the DFW-area, travels all over photographing (Cue Johnny Cash).), Nathan (From Michigan; Runs his own bridge site.), and John (From the MSP-area; Travels around the Midwest, juggling this hobby AND his university studies.) have you beat.

North River Bridge
Posted April 21, 2018, by M C Toyer (mctoyer [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Amanda -

Did you take any measurements of the extant bridge - length, width, vertical clearance? Was there any evidence of a prior bridge on the stone pilings? Do you have a clear photo of the timber stringers or did you take note of their dimensions?

North River Bridge
Posted April 21, 2018, by Art S (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)

Amanda,

I appreciate your passion and your enthusiasm. However, please don't tell me that I don't have a right to disagree with you. A number of us disagree and we don't all get along but that doesn't mean we don't have similar goals about bridge preservation and about this site.

Also, if you looked into it, you will find that quite a few here spend significant amounts of their time and/or money pursuing this hobby.

Sincerely,

Art S.

North River Bridge
Posted April 21, 2018, by Luke

This is far too narrow to have been a vehicular bridge.

Historicaerials shows a much wider bridge here in previous years.

North River Bridge
Posted April 21, 2018, by Amanda

I'm willing to compromise on a lot of things... have you ever noticed that I've deleted many of my bridge pages that you or Luke have said are "wrong" even though I know they weren't wrong? Did you notice that I removed the essay from the Pineground Bridge even though I strongly disagree with your rationale for requesting that I do so?

However, I will not compromise when I personally spent an hour out in the cold weather documenting and inspecting this bridge. I didn't even know it existed until I was poking around on Google Street View one day and noticed the "Bridge Closed" signs on either end of the street (which, BTW indicate that this is indeed a former vehicular bridge - if it was constructed just for pedestrian use, the entire road would've been blocked off except to the one or two people that live there)

As I said, I spent a good hour out in the cold documenting this bridge and determining which elements were functional and which elements were decorations. I never said that the bridge was a wire suspension bridge... however the wires are more than just "wires running through the railing". They are supplementing a small portion of the timber stringer on one end of the bridge. Additionally, the wooden towers are not decorations - they are part of the pier construction.

Honestly, IMHO you have no right to be arguing and criticizing me about a bridge that is not in the NBI that you have not personally visited and I have.

I'm kind of at the end of my rope here. If people don't start being appreciative for the time and money I've spend and continue to spend traveling across the country and documenting bridges, sometimes in the least of urban areas... congratulations.. you just lost a contributor.

North River Bridge
Posted April 21, 2018, by Amanda

I'm not wiling to compromise on this one.

I know what I saw and I know my eyes were not deceiving me. This page is staying as it is, unless Mr. Baughn says otherwise.

North River Bridge
Posted April 21, 2018, by Art S (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)

Amanda,

I'm only responding to your comment about the bridge carrying vehicular traffic. The bridge that originally sat on those abutments may have carried vehicular traffic, as it was considerably wider.

To me, it looks like the structure that is there now is for pedestrians and, maybe, golf carts.

Regards,

Art S.

North River Bridge
Posted April 21, 2018, by Amanda

This bridge clearly once was used by vehicular traffic - otherwise why would there be vehicular approaches to it with “Bridge Closed” signs on both sides?

Some of what you are saying *might* be valid if this page was based off external sources like many of mine have been, but it’s not valid when I made an ACTUAL SITE VISIT TO THE BRIDGE AND SPENT ABOUT AN HOUR DOCUMENTING IT. Did you even look at the photos I took, which clearly show a decorative wire suspension system?

Regardless if you think my work is sloppy, you don’t just go in and delete half of it without explaining in the update log and/or a comment. You want me to “discuss” your work; you need to discuss mine. How would you feel if I just went to one of your pages, deleted half of the content that you had spent time putting together, and didn’t offer any explanation whatsoever?

North River Bridge
Posted April 20, 2018, by Luke

To tack a valid criticism onto that, "damaged by flooding" seems to be superfluous of "destroyed by flooding" IMHO.

North River Bridge
Posted April 20, 2018, by Luke

I've been cycling all day.